Trygon Electronics, Inc.

404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Trygon Electronics, Inc. andJohn Joseph Wilson. Case 29-CA-2562 September 29, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On July 10, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or- der? The Administrative Law Judge concluded, inter alia, that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging John Joseph Wilson for engaging in the protected activites of complaining about working conditions affecting himself and oth- ers, pursuing grievances through Local 475 directed toward the correction of such conditions, and circu- lating petitions to remove Local 475's union steward and to substitute Local 1922 for Local 475 as the employees' collective-bargaining representative. The Respondent contends that the Board should honor an arbitration award concerning the discharge although it concedes that the question of Wilson's union and concerted activities was never raised before the arbitrator. The Administrative Law Judge did not deal with this contention in his Decision although Respondent raised it at the hearing and in its brief to him. In two recent decisions we have held that: .. deference would not be accorded to the result of an arbitration proceeding where the issue of Respondent's asserted discriminatory motive had not been presented to the arbitral forum which considered whether the discipline of an employee was imposed for just cause .3 Accordingly, as Respondent admits that the issue of its assertedly improper motivation in effecting the discharge was not litigated at the arbitration proceed- ing, we shall not honor the arbitration award and shall affirm the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent discharged Wilson because of his union and concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Trygon Electronics, Inc., Westbury, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972. 2 The Respondent in effect has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 Yourga Trucking, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 130; Airco Industrial Gases, 195 NLRB No. 120. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, un- der Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on April 26, 1972, at Brooklyn, New York. The charge was filed on October 13, 1971. The com- plaint in this matter was issued on March 21, 1972. The ussues concern (1) whether Respondent discharged John Joseph Wilson on October 8, 1971, because of his union or protected concerted activites in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act; and (2) whether Respondent engaged in acts of interrogation and threats relating to employee union activies or protected concerted activities in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding. Local 475's participation was limited to participating in the proceeding and to the right to file a brief with the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been filed by Respon- dent and the General Counsel and have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. Trygon Electronics, Inc., the Respon- dent, is and has been at all times material herein a corpora- tion duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. At all time material herein, Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business at 1200 Shames Drive, in the town of Westbury, 199 NLRB No. 61 TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC. 405 State of New York, herein called the Westbury plant, where it is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic prod- ucts and related products. During the year ending October 31, 1971, which period is representative of its annual operations generally, Respon- dent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Westbury plant products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State in which it is located. As conceded by Respondent and based upon the fore- going, it is concluded and found that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. Amalgamated Local 475, International Union of Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 475, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1922, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Issues The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. 1. Supervisory status Arthur Johannsen and Viola Dawson are, and have been at all times material herein, production manager and supervisor of the component board department, respective- ly, of Respondent, agents thereof acting on its behalf, and supervisors thereof within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. 2. Collective-bargaining agreement At all times material herein, Respondent and Local 475 have maintained in effect and enforced a collective-bargain- ing agreement previously executed by them relating to the hire, tenure, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees of Respondent. they filed grievances with Local 475 against Respondent." The testimony about this incident concerns remarks made or not made by Johannsen at a company party in August 1971. The party was held prior to the moving of the company plant from Woodhaven to Westbury. Witnesses Wilson, Aliko, and Surico testified to the composite effect that at said party Johannsen told Wilson and Surico in effect that Wilson wouldn't last long, that the Company would get rid of him within a month when it moved to Westbury, and that Surico would be next. Johansen testified about the alleged incident as is re- vealed by the following excerpts from his testimony. Q. There has been some testimony, Mr. Johann- sen, about statements you made to Mr. Wilson and to Mr. Sunco at a party at the Woodhaven plant. Do you remember that occasion? A. Yes. Very well I remember the occasion. Q. Would you tell us what happened? A. We had a party. And that's all I remember. I remember passing no remarks of threatening John or Joe about losing their jobs. I recollect none of this and we had a wild party. Q. Are you denying that you said anything? A. Yes, I am. Q. Or are you saying you merely don't remember whether you said it? A. I'm not saying-I'm denying that I said it. Considering the foregoing, I am persuaded that Wil- son, Aliko, and Surico's testimonial recollection of what occurred is more reliable than that of Johannsen on this point. I am not persuaded that Johannsen has a good recol- lection of the event. I credit the composite effect of the testimony of Wilson, Aliko, and Surico as indicated. I dis- credit Johannsen's denial of the events. The remarks in question reveal a threat but not necessarily a threat in re- prisal of union or concerted activities. Much background evidence was adduced in this pro- ceeding relating to Wilson's complaints to the Company and to grievances filed with Local 475 relating to working conditions. It is clear that Wilson made such complaints to the Company and contacted the Union about solutions to his and others' contended grievances. It is not necessary herein to detail such grievances or determine what the solu- tion to the grievances and complaints should have been. It is clear that the Respondent knew of such complaints and grievances and did attempt some solutions thereto. The facts reveal that the Respondent was in financial trouble at, the time of these events and that solutions to some of the grievances and complaints may have been hampered there- by. It is clear that after Wilson had taken complaints to the Union, at some time during either April or May 1971,' Production Manager Johannsen asked Wilson in effect why he was bothering with the Union and told him that he B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies that "on or about a date presently unknown in Au- gust 1971, Respondent by Arthur Johansen, its supervisor and agent, threatened its employees with discharge and oth- er reprisals because of their concerted activity and because 1 There is no complaint allegation as to violative conduct in April or May 1971. I note the charge in this case was filed on October 13, 1971 I would not find that this matter was litigated as other than background evidence Further, I would find the testimony of the witnesses unreliable to establish that the conduct occurred within the 10(b) period (within 6 months of the date the charge was filed). 2 The facts are based upon Wilson' s credited testimony. Johannsen, who testified, did not testify in denial of these remarks. 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD should watch his step or he would get in trouble,2 and that he should stop pestering the Union every time something happened. Around the same time Supervisor Viola Dawson told Wilson that he should leave the Union alone, that he was a troublemaker, and that he didn't need the equipment he claimed he needed? The facts reveal that Wilson was a habitual complainer during his term of employment (December 1970 to October 1971). The specific facts as to his complaints, contacts with the Union, and conversations with supervisors thereto relate to events of April or May 1971. Production Manager Jo- hannsen and Supervisor Dawson credibly testified to other aspects of Wilson's work and attitude throughout the period of his employment. Such credited facts reveal that Wilson was away from his machine on many occasions; that when questioned by his supervisors, Wilson always had an answer in explanation for being away from his machine; that the supervisors did not believe his explanation but apparently could not disprove the same ; and that on many of the occasions Wilson was with Surico. The facts reveal in effect that Surico appeared allied with Wilson in the complaints about working conditions! The facts reveal that supervisors spoke to Wilson on many occasions about his work and that Wilson's replies were to the effect to get "off his back." The facts also reveal that there was employee friction because Wilson turned the ventilation fans one way and other em- ployees turned the fans a different direction. Wilson and the girls would argue about the fan. Wilson would tell the girls to get "off his back." Johannsen on such occasions had to tell Wilson to quiet things down. On many occasions Wilson would ignore Dawson when she was talking to him. As to some of the problems between Wilson and his supervisors, I note the following. One of Wilson's com- plaints was about the ventilation fan. The machine upon which Wilson worked emitted smoke from the oil used. The ventilation fan was apparently old and apparently did not always function correctly. It appears that Wilson was not happy with the way the ventilation fan functioned after being repaired. The problem seems to result from Respondent's financial problems and attempts to manage such problems. Thus, Wilson considered the repairs inad- equate, and Respondent appears to have considered Wilson to be unreasonable in his attitude. Another of Wilson's complaints was about the lack of heavy neoprene gloves to protect his hands from burns. Prior to Wilson's employment Respondent had such gloves available for use. Either shortly before or after Wilson's assignment to the machine he used, such gloves (and apron) disappeared. After Wilson's com- plaint, Production Manager Johannsen gave Wilson some light neoprene gloves for use. These were cut thereafter, intentionally or unintentionally. Johannsen gave Wilson an- other set of light neoprene gloves. Wilson did not use these gloves. Ultimately in September, after Wilson's renewed complaints through the Union, heavy neoprene gloves were furnished to him.5 The problem as to the gloves seems to have been generated in part by Respondent's financial con- 3 The facts are based upon Wilson's credited testimony. Dawson, who testified, did not testify in denial of these remarks. 4The facts about Sunco's being allied with Wilson are revealed by the composite testimony of all witnesses and is not in dispute. S The heavy neoprene gloves were the gloves customarily used on said job. ditions and attempts to solve its problem as best it could but not in the most adequate way. Again, it appears that Wilson was insisting on complete solution. Respondent believed that Wilson was not interested in the equipment (gloves) as such, but was being unreasonable. Facts reveal that Wilson was absent from work on many occasions but not absent enough to warrant automat- ic dismissal according to company policy or the collective- bargaining agreement. Thus, records reveal that Wilson was excessively absent during June, that he received a warning on July 1, 1971, to the effect that he had had excessive absences in June. Such warning is revealed by the following warning no- tice: WARNING NOTICE-ABSENTEEISM DATE: July 1, 1971 TO: J. Wilson DEPT: 51 CLOCK NUMBER: 1372 This is to advise you that your attendance for the month of June is unsatisfactory. This is your first written warning in the last 3 months. Company rules specify that 3 months of excessive ab- senteeism in any 5 month period will result in automat- ic dismissal. Please make every effort to improve your attendance immediately. G.C. Rabin GR:pr Again in September, Wilson received another warning about his absenteeism as is revealed by the following warn- ing notice: WARNING NOTICE-ABSENTEEISM DATE: Sept. 7, 1971 TO: John Wilson DEPT: 51 CLOCK NUMBER: 1372 This is to advise you that your attendance for the month of August is unsatisfactory. This is your second written warning in the last 4 months. ONE additional month in which your absenteeism is excessive will result in automatic dismissal. Please make every effort to improve your attendance immediately. G. C. Rabin GR:pr It is noted that within the purview of such warning notice Wilson did not have excessive absenteeism for 3 months within a 5-month period. Wilson's testimony was to the effect that some of the absenteeism in June was "ex- cused" because of "burns" he received at work. Respondent's evidence on this point was limited to the warning notice. From the record revealing that Wilson dill- TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC. gently pushed for what he considered his rights, I am not persuaded that his recollection of his absenteeism is correct as to the "bums" reasons. I am persuaded that if Wilson had received a warning notice about absenteeism in June, and that if such absenteeism had been excused, Wilson would have complained at that time. There is no indication of such complaint. I do not credit his testimony to the effect that some of the June absenteeism was of an excused nature. Events following the August threat by Johannsen at the party reveal more union and concerted activity by Wilson. Events following the threat in August 1971 also reveal Re- spondent threats of reprisal as to union and concerted activ- ity by Wilson and his discriminatory discharge. I have considered such later events as a matter of evidence in determining whether the events preceding the August 1971 threat caused an improper motivation on Johannsen's part. It is clear that Johannsen threatened employees with discharge at the party in Woodhaven in August 1971. The question is whether the threat was one of reprisal because of their concerted activity and because they filed grievances with Local 475 against Respondent. It is clear that the rea- son for the threat must have been prompted by events pre- ceding the threat. Considering all of the foregoing, I note the following. The August threat by Johannsen to Wilson and Surico does not specifically spell out the the threat was because of union or protected concerted activity. The other statements of threats by Johannsen and Dawson are explicit in such re- gard. There is no evidence of any statements or threats by Johannsen or Dawson indicative that Wilson's job status was in jeopardy because of any other reason. Under such circumstances, I am persuaded that Johannsen intended tc convey to Wilson and Surico•the threat that they were to be fired because of their union or protected concerted activity. I am persuaded that Wilson and Surico understood the intended threat. Such conduct by Johannsen constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so con- cluded and found. 2. The General Counsel alleges and Respondent denies that: A. On or about a date presently unknown in the latter part of September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Dawson, its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, interrogated its employees concerning the employees' membership in, activ- ities on behalf of, and sympathy in and for Local 1922. B. On or about various dates presently unknown during mid-to-late September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Dawson, its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, interrogated its employees concerning the employees' filing grievances with Local 475 against Respondent. C. On or about various dates presently unknown in the latter part of September 1971, Respondent, by Viola Daw- son, its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, threat- ened its employees with discharge and other reprisals for circulating petitions concerning Local 475 and Local 1922, and if they engaged in other union and concerted activities. The facts relating to these allegations are based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Wilson. In September 1971, Wilson circulated two petitions among the employees. One of the petitions circulated was for the removal of Frank Fanfan as union steward. The 407 other petition was for the purpose of securing Local 1922 as bargaining agent. It is clear that Supervisor Dawson became aware of both petitions. Thus, Dawson saw a document or piece of paper being circulated and asked an employee what it was. The employee told Dawson that it was a petition to get rid of the Union. Around this time Dawson also spoke to Wilson about the petitions. Dawson told Wilson that he should not do it, that he should leave the union out of it, that he was going to fired, and that he was going to lose his job. In the conver- sation Dawson asked Wilson why he wanted to get rid of Fanfan and told him that Local 475 was the best union he ever had. Considering the foregoing, I note the following. I am not persuaded that Dawson's inquiry to an employee about a document being circulated constitutes unlawful interroga- tion as to union or protected concerted activity. It is clear that the facts do not establish that Dawson knew that the document was prior to the time that the employee told her. I find it understandable that a supervisor, or anyone else, might ask what was being circulated. Considering this, I conclude and find that such inquiry was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As to Dawson's other remarks to Wilson set forth above, I conclude and find that they constitute a threat of reprisal because of his union and protected concerted activi- ties. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1). I am not persuaded, however, that Dawson's remarks (included in the conversation containing the threat of re- prisal referred to above) as to why Wilson wanted to get rid of Fanfan constitute unlawful interrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Considering the back- ground of Wilson's grievances, complaints, and discussions in the plant with supervisors, it is clear that the "inquiry" was mere argument in nature, that the question of "why" he wanted to get rid of Fanfan would not be coercive or re- straining in nature upon his activities, and that it would not add to the coerciveness or restraining nature of the threat of reprisal in the other remarks. By the "inquiry" Respon- dent, by Dawson, did not separately violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies that Respondent, by Arthur Johannsen, its supervisor and agent, at the Westbury plant, harassed its employee, John Wilson, because of his activities in behalf of Local 1922 and other union and concerted activity, by giving him a written warning on or about September 24, 1971, to the effect that unless he improved he would be discharged and thereafter, on or about October 1, 6, and 7, 1971, advising said employee that he only had so many days to go until he was discharged. The facts are clear that Respondent gave Wilson a warning letter on or about September 27, 1971. Such letter was as follows: TRYGON ELECTRONICS INC. 111 Pleasant Avenue Roosevelt, L. I., New York Area Code 516 FReeport 8-2800 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD September 27, 1971 Mr. John Wilson, You have been notified verbally on a number of occasions, that your work attitude and your ability to operate the solder machine and associated tasks is un- satisfactory. You have had 6 months to develop compe- tence in the adjustments, and maintenance and operation of the equipment. You have failed to achieve the level of competence required of a solder machine operator, as a result of which an acceptable level of supervision and direction is required. We are giving you an additional two weeks, (Oct. 8th) to demonstrate a significant improvement in your work attitude and the performance of your job func- tion. A. Johannsen Production Man. AJ: cc Wilson testified that Production Manager Johansen taunted him during the 2-week period between September 27 and October 8, 1971, that Johannsen (1) told him that there were only 2 weeks "until we get rid of you," (2) told him that there were only 3 days to go, (3) told him that he hated to see him go, (4) told him "goodby," and (5) told him that there would be some peace around there. Surico testi- fied to overhearing such remarks. Johansen testified in denial of these remarks. Wilson's and Sunco's testimony had the ring of truth. Considering this and the logical con- sistency of the evidence, I credit Wilson's and Surico's testi- mony to these events. Considering (1) the foregoing; (2) the conduct of Re- spondent found in this case to constitute conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, previously set forth; (3) Johannsen's statements to Wilson following Wilson's Sep- tember 1971 circulation of the petitions to the effect that if Wilson didn't watch his step, he would be fired, that Wilson was starting a lot of trouble in there, that Wilson was drag- ging the Union into the matter, and that nobody had ever started that trouble before;6 and (4) the discriminatory dis- charge of Wilson on October 8, 1971, found later herein, I conclude and find that the Respondent, by Johannsen, har- assed Wilson, as alleged, because of his union and protected concerted activities. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so concluded and found. C. The Discriminatory Discharge of Wilson The Respondent discharged John Wilson on October 6 The facts are based on Wilson's credited testimony Johannsen testified in the proceeding but did not testify to such remarks or a denial thereof. I note that the charge in this case was filed on October 13, 1971, that complaint issued on March 21, 1972, that the hearing was held on April 26, 1972, that the testimony of events came from Wilson, the Charging Party, that there is no allegation of the complaint as to violative conduct as regards to Johannsen's remarks, and that General Counsel's brief contains no conten- tion that this has been litigated as an 8(axl) issue or that the said remarks are violative of the Act. I do not make a finding that this conduct referred to in (3) constitutes conduct violative of the Act I do consider it as back- ground in connection with the complaint issues . I do not find it proper under all the circumstances to consider that such remarks have been litigated as conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 8, 1971. The General Counsel contends that Respondent discharged Wilson because of his union and protected con- certed activities. The Respondent denies that it discharged Wilson because of his union or protected concerted activi- ties. The Respondent contends in effect that its reasons for the discharge of Wilson were the reasons set forth in its letter of September 27, 1971, to Wilson, and that he made no improvement during the last 2-week period. The facts are clear, as previously indicated, that Wilson engaged in union and protected concerted activities. He made many complaints to supervisors about working condi- tions affecting him and others. He pursued grievances through Local 475 directed toward the correction of such conditions. Wilson circulated petitions directed toward get- ting the Local 1922 substituted for Local 475, and directed toward the removal of Local 475 union steward. Respondent's supervisors, as previously indicated, re- sponded by statements to Wilson to the effect that he would be fired for such activity. The facts also reveal that there was some friction be- tween Wilson and his supervisors, that supervisors believed that he was away much of the time from his machine with- out cause, and that there was disagreement between him and his supervisor over the quality of his work and job attendance. Considering all of the facts, I find that the facts prepon- derate for a finding that Respondent was discriminatorily motivated in its discharge of Wilson. The facts, excepting (1) for the warnings about absenteeism-keyed to a 3- out of 5-month excessive absenteeism as cause for automatic dismissal and (2) the September 27, 1971, warning letter, found to constitute harrassment herein, reveal only warn- ings of discharge because of union or concerted activity.? In sum, I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the discharge of Wilson on October 8, 1971. The testimonial record in this case persuades me that the discriminatee, Wilson, might misinterpret the effect of this decision. The remedy in this case will be designed to correct the unfair labor practices of the Respondent. It will be designed to do no more and to do no less. It will not afford insulation from discipline or supervision which is not discriminatorily motivated or discriminatory in nature. With this in mind, it is hoped that Respondent's good-faith compliance with the remedy and the Charging Party's un- derstanding thereof will result in the end of litigation in this matter. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's oper- ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. r Based on a consideration of the logical consistency of all facts , and the fact that I did not find his testimony as to the reason for Wilson's discharge to be persuasive, I discredit Johannsen's testimony as to the motivating reason for his discharge of Wilson TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC. 409 V THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un- fair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respon- dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Respondent discharged John Joseph Wilson on October 8, 1971, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent offer him reinstatement to his job, and make him whole for loss of earnings within the meaning and in accord with the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heat- ing Co., 138 NLRB 716, except as specifically modified by the wording of such recommended Order. Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, the recommended Order will provide that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Trygon Electronics, Inc., the Respondent; is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Local 475, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor orgainzation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By discharging John Joseph Wilson on October 8, 1971, the Respondent has encouraged membership in one labor organization and discouraged membership in another labor organization by discriminating in regard to tenure of employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By the foregoing and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the 'Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, Trygon Electronics, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against employees, in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment because of their union or protected concerted activities. (b) Threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals because of their union activities or protected con- certed activities. (c) Harassing employees by giving them written warn- ings relating to possible discharge and by oral statements indicating that discharge would follow because of employ- ees' union activities or protected concerted activities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to John Joseph Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner described above in the section entitled "The Reme- dy „ (b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms and this recommended Order. (d) Post at Respondent's plant in Westbury, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10 9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 10 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify Continued 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of unlawful conduct not specifically found to be violative herein be dismissed. the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer to John Joseph Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment, or any term or condition of employment because of their union or protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals because of their union activities or pro- tected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT harass employees by giving them writ- ten warnings relatmg to possible discharge or by orally stating to them-that discharge will follow because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agree- ments in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organi- zation, except to the extent provided by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. TRYGON ELECTRONICS, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the Unites States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.